.............................................

Grandpa

I usually don't get involved in the Democrat/Republican debates……but that one was really funny!! :p

Cowlitzfisherman

Plan? They don't need no stinkin plan.

Grandpa: Don' t you evev get riered of bieng wrong?

100 Members of Congress Co-Sponsor Salmon Planning Act


Thursday, November 06, 2003

Washington, DC - Support for protecting the Northwest's economy and salmon runs reached a milestone today, with 100 House members signing on to the bipartisan Salmon Planning Act. Introduced by Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Thomas Petri (R-WI), this bill has three main elements - a science analysis by National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of current and anticipated salmon recovery actions, General Accounting Office (GAO) studies on how to best transition local economies to a free-flowing lower Snake River and authority to the Army Corps of Engineers to remove the four lower Snake River dams, if dam removal is deemed necessary by the federal agencies charged with protecting salmon and complying with tribal treaties.

"What this is really about is ensuring the region has a strong economy and healthy wild salmon runs," said Michael Garrity, associate director, federal dams program, American Rivers. "This bill is a step toward a comprehensive solution, a vision for the future that works for people, salmon and the economy."

The federal salmon plan, which was recently deemed illegal under the Endangered Species Act by a federal court judge, required aggressive efforts at habitat protection and restoration and increased water flows, but was implemented at less than 30 percent this past year. Even if it had been implemented at 100 percent, scientists say that the surest way to avert extinction and restore salmon to abundant harvestable levels is to remove the four lower Snake River dams.

Isn't that their plan for just about everything?

Hmmm

Who cares about what the dem's and rep's think abou salmon plans. lets face it this is not an issue that will be decided upon by elected officials. Salmon plans are developed by people who have been entrenched beauracracys longer than any elected official has been in office. presidents and congressmen come and go but beaurocrats are eternal ( at least in their own minds).
Therefore it is thoes individuals in these government agencies that really set the tone and are who we as sport anglers need to influence.
That said this would be my proposal for a salmon plan.

1. REQUIRE!!! opperators of all dams to make habitats downstream of their facilities optimal for salmon and steelhead year around. ( no more drying out chum redds) and things like that

2, eliminate road building loggin and development in critical salmon habitata or areas that could affect such habitat.

3. Make hatchery plans for 3 purposes
a. harvest fisheries where wild stocks are depleted to extinction. Such rivers should be planted heavily for the purpose of a high yeld fisher for sport commercial and tribal fisheries. There would be few such fisheries but there would be some..

b. total wild rivers. These are to be in every location where good populations of wild fish still exsist. Focus on these rivers will be no hatcheries with catch and release regulations that also require selective gear single barbles hooks.. This is not creating " botique " fisheries!!! it's sustainable sport fishing opportunity..

c. mixed stock fisheries. These are to take place where hatchery stocks would have little impact on wild runs and would consist of as an example Wild winter steelhead but hatchery fall chinook and coho but NOT hatchery winter steelhead.. The purpose is to provide some harvest opportunity in areas where there may not be a "harvest river".

Commercial Net fishing in the columbia will be terminated and a series of fish traps created where fishermen will be trained to properly handle and release ALL wild fish. Tribal fisheries would be opperated in the same manner and every single hatcher fish would be marked.

Storm run off would be dealt with in a meaningful way so that urban and suburban streams don't have lethal levels of toxic chemicals in them

In all aspects the overall survival of each strain of fish in each river will be the overriding factor in determining what activities can take place in a watershed. In other words no political decisions. Everything that happens must have a strong scientific rationale to support it.

anyway yes i know it's a pipe dream so what. WHat choice would such a plan have but to work???

There you go again with your wild only catch and release streams. Let's hear an all inclusive plan that benefits everyone and not just you.

Rob..I actually agree with several of your ideas. Just not the extreme ones.

Grandpa that was an all inclusive plan.. requireing the release of all wild steelhad is NOT extreme it's common sence and any plan that does not require the release of all wild steelhead is doomed to failure.. failure ( what we have now) is extreme.. we extremely error on the side of harvest.

Rob: Your plan seems like heaven. In many ways it mirrors B.C. They have a few rivers, like the Vedder, heavily planted for intense sport catch and kill fisheries and to support commercial and native fisheries. Most of their river have no hatcheries whatsoever and they are doing fine. Some like the Thompson are catch and release only. Others have limited catch and kill fisheries for salmon with total catch and release for steelhead. It’s a sensible plan. Now try to get anything, like universal supper for it.

Those who are opposed to any catch and release fisheries seem unaware of the huge numbers of anglers who actually prefer it. Both the Yakima and the Sky saw large increases in the number of anglers once total catch and release was in place. (In the Sky. I’m referring to the spring catch and release steelhead fishery.) It’s not some sort of elitist fishery if more anglers use it than they did when it was catch and kill. Those who need to kill a fish could still do so in one of the rivers heavily planted for that purpose.

Just for the record...I kill very few fish and catch lots of them. If I keep a steelhead it is on the Quinault. Once all hatchery fish are marked we can expand catch and release practices across the board. Until that day we can't. that is if we want to include the majority of fishers. As we move up into Canada and into Alaska things are different...mainly because of population and lack of massive urbanization as we have here.

grandpa what does marking all fish have to do with catch and release??? keep the marked ones release all the unmarked.. whats complicated about that???

DUH? There are tons of fish from hatcheries with adipose fins....Not everyone out there fishing can smell a hatchery fish like you can.

Grandpa:

Very reasonable sounding ideas. In fact I agree with a good deal of what you said. But . . . You knew there would be a but, didn't you?

By having some rivers or some months on some rivers as 100% C&R you can include all fishers, even those who prefer the 100% C&R scenario. Look at the Yakima dn see how extremely popular fisheries can be. But . . . I sure don't want all or even a majority of our rivers to be C&R. I understand that many, perhaps most, sports anglers, want at least some opportunities to bring home fish. Like you, I catch many and kill few, but every year I take one special day and kill two wild trout . I relish that day and would feel deprived if I had no chance to do that. But . . . We can do like southern B.C., which is very urban, and have some rivers VERY heavily hatchery supplemented, where we can all catch and kill some fish , and the remainder where we can reasonable expect to catch a wild trout or steelhead, but where we must severe limit or eliminate retention.

To assure that many of us can enjoy a quality experience there will need to be closed waters, such a spawning tributaries, restricted waters and severely restricted waters., in addition to heavily planted hatchery waters.

grandpa so because some hatchery fish are not marked people shouldn't practice catch and release??? I don;t agree with that logic

We wouldn't want to release a hatchery fish back into the wild would we. Wouldn't even one unmarked hatchery fish comingling with a wild fish by one to many?

Why not do everything possble to prevent further contamination of the wild genetics?

Or is that attitude to much like the philosophy of an infamous german from the 30's?

Plunker of course having hatchery fish spawn in the wild is a bad thing.. compareing that philosophy to nazism is a laughable analogy.
Telling people to keep all fish until all hatchery fish are clipped because the unclipped ones might be hatchery fish is just silly..

How about requireing the release of all fish because it could be a wild fish that was clipped as a juvenile by an unethical sportsman. ( happens on the N. Umpqua all the time)

On the other hand I was trying to make a compromise for the sake of all. If i truly had it my way all wisheries would be wild only single barbless artificial no retention..

I guess this teaches me to try to make a compromise with unreasonable people..

Plunker

Your last sentence took the words right out of my mouth!

Isn't it just amazing how all other species can interbreed within its own specie and continue to survive, but yet fish in some peoples minds, don't follow the biological rule of nature.

Unfortunately, wild fish don't live or survive in glass bubbles and many other factors are most likely working on their decline other than just hatcheries and intermixing. Some areas will likely continue to support self-sustaining runs, while other areas will continue to decline. Fish will continue to survive even when many wild fish stocks have vanished! It's been going on since time.

Rob:

Why is it a "bad thing" to have hatchery fish spawn in the wild? It's working just fine on the Upper Cowlitz, so why won't it work in other areas too? In your mind, is it also considered to be a "bad thing" to have wild fish stray into other rivers and spawn, mix and compete with their own native fish? Since those strays don't belong there, and are not native to that system, shouldn't those strays be bonked to save the pure native strain that currently exists in that system? What is the big difference?

One could certainly make the case that if wild fish are so essential, then all fishing on those stocks should be curtailed! That would also mean no more catch and release seasons either. So it would appear that it's "OK" for the people who enjoy there catch and release fishery, that also causes a "taking" (hook and release mortally rate), but at the same time, other fishers that enjoy the "taking" of hatchery fish must give up there sport, and share to those that only enjoy and promote a "wild fish" hook and release fishery.

In cases were many river are void of "wild stocks" in sufficient numbers to ever become fully "self sustaining", why would anyone not want to utilize the river for fish production by useing hatchery stocks that may very well adapt to the river someday, and may even become self sustaining over time?

I don't really know what the actual numbers are, but one would think that there is less then 10-20% of our rivers left that really have viable stocks of wild fish. Wouldn't it make more sense to enhance those few rivers that are left that still carry viable stocks of wild fish, and promote hatchery supplementation in the remaining 80% that doesn't?


Cowlitzfisherman

Rob.. I never said that I oppose C&R..In fact, I stated that I keep few fish..that means I release most fish. I do not believe your strategy of C&R only though. I agree with CFM in saying that if wild stocks are in such fragile condition in some rivers by your philosophy I think you should give up fishing altogether to escape being hypocritical. You are so adament about saving wild fish by any means necessary but then go on about C&R only rivers like the Yakima. It sounds to me that what you really want is the "experience" as you call it. No crowds, no hatchery fish..just you, your fly rod and the wild fish. Fine for you but not a popular exclusionary idea. So many arguments here stress "the right way" to fish...looking at the ridiculous flossing thread. on and on about what is acceptable.

When I talk about hatchery fish not being clipped I should clarify that I am all for C&R and am only pointing out that not clipping all hatchery fish is a cop out and an appeasement to the tribes. They don't want the hatchery fish to be marked so they can continue to harvest wild fish falling back on the double standard. As more and more hatchery fish are marked more and more C&R seasons will develop. Witness the salmon season this summer in areas 5&6. A very successful season that gave opportunity to fishers targetting big Kings who hadn't been able to target them in years. So I am all for C&R as long as we concentrate on the overall plan and not just a few boutique fisheries like the Yakima. The Yakima is a great fishery and I am all for it. I just think some of your arguments seem selfish. Compromise is tough but more and more necessary every day.

Grandpa,

Why do you call the Yakima a boutique fishery? That labeling strikes me as too similar to Rob's extremism (everyone who disagrees with Rob is wrong. Sorry Rob.). The Yakima is a productive trout stream, however, no river is productive enough to permit a general harvest of wild trout these days. It's the too many people thing that you often mention. In a state of too many people, full time C&R on the Yakima apparently is the best way of maximizing angling recreation. Otherwise, it would be in a perpetual state of being nearly fished out, as each fish reaches the minimum size limit, it gets bonked, keeping the spawning population, perpetually too small. It seems like the Yakima regulations aren't boutique, they are simply a reflection of how to have quality fishing for wild trout in a state with 6 million citizens.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G: You are 100% right about the Yakima. I have fished it regularly since 1972. Back then it was 5 fish a day over 8 inches; I believe I have that right. My memory is not what it once was. Back in the 5 fish days there wasn't much pressure and we occasionally caught our five fish, with an average size of perhaps 11 inches. Later the rules went to 2 a day over 15 inches. We immediately saw an increase in angling pressure and we began catching more and bigger fish. Finally the rules went to zero retention. We then began having some 15 fish days and occasionally got fish in the 18 to 20 inch range, AND the pressure went through the roof.

While I admit the population has increased since 1970s' I firmly believe that the C&R rules dramatically increased the number of users on the river. It is definitely not a boutique fishery. It is one of the most heavily fished trout streams in the northwest. If it were to go back to a 5 fish limit it would soon become a boutique fishery as only a relative small number of special interest anglers would care to participate in the resultant poor fishing.

I am by no means a 100% C&R advocate, but we need to limit catches to the level where we have a healthy population of spawners to keep the system healthy. In some cases that will mean C&R. Not for elitism, but for healthy streams. Fortunately this often makes for more angler day of utilization.

Grandpa ??? Have you ever posted anything about "fishing"... Do you go fishing ???? Do you have a Rod and reel ???

Are you really Rush Limbaugh???

Plunker... there are people on this earth that think "your" made of "meat"... mostly your head.

B-RUN STEELY

And there are plenty of people who feel the same about you!

Yeah? Try sleeping with your sister or daughter and let us know how the offspring turn out.

Dan S.

I think you can travel to the Ozarks and get the answer to that question. Or check out Europe's royal families.

Maybe someone should tell you the story about the birds and the bees Dan

So what's your point? Are you trying to tell us that all other species of fish, flora and fauna don’t' interbreed within itself?

Cowlitzfisherman

Surecatch, you must be referring to the fishery above Roza Dam . Below the dam it is still 2 fish over 12" and under 20" can still be retained.

cfm,

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

Dan

What I was referring to was your statement saying "Yeah? Try sleeping with your sister or daughter and let us know how the offspring turn out"

I thought your reply was saying that if you mate with your daughter or sister you will not survive as a specie. Maybe you are right about what happens to humans when they interbreed too closely, but that same reasoning doesn't work or apply in the fish world or other species such as bees! (that's why I asked you about the birds and the bees).

Example; a single bee hive may have well over 5000 bees in it. Ever single bee came from the same single queen (worker bees only live about 50 days). Even those she (the queen) may have mated with a few drones, she has mated with her sons. The queen before her, also has mated with her son too. Which in your comparison would be like humans mating with their own sons and daughters.

Is that any clearer, or are we talking about totally different things? Do I have to get into the "sex of a worm" next?

Cowlitzfisherman

So, a fish is a bee and a worm?

I'm trying to keep up, but...............

Bee reproduction:

http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/haploiddiploid.html

Doesn't sound like any fish I know of.

The genetic deterioration caused by inbreeding doesn't often show up in the first generation, it usually takes repeatedly turning the genes back on themselves before the mutations we all associate with inbreeding occur.

At least, that's what what my sister/girlfriend told me.

Dan/H20

I think that you may find this artical interesting about wild fish and their breeding habits.

October 28, 2003

Landmark study finds interbreeding between wild Atlantic salmon and escaped farmed salmon is leading to the extinction of wild salmon, and that restocking programs to 'boost' depleted wild populations are probably having the opposite effect.

The Atlantic salmon is much admired. Flavorsome, high in protein and a rich source of vitamins and omega-3 oils, it ranks among the world's most popular foods. As a sport fish, the Atlantic salmon's reputation is unmatched. And then there's its incredible spawning run, when the fish navigates across 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) of ocean, before fighting up rapids and falls, to reach the very same waters in which it was born.

But according to an excellent National Geographic article, scientists say Salmo salar, the "leaper" in Latin, is now losing this ability, which could lead to the extinction of wild populations throughout Europe and North America. The reason, they say, is the creation of a new race of mongrel salmon - the product of escaped farmed salmon breeding with wild fish.

The warning follows a ten-year experiment in County Mayo, western Ireland, where researchers monitored successive generations of hybrid offspring produced by wild and farmed salmon. Reporting their findings in the scientific journal Royal Society Proceedings B, they found these hybrid fish have poor survival rates at sea and are unable to find their way back to freshwater to spawn.

An estimated two million farm salmon are escaping from marine cages in the North Atlantic each year, equivalent to about 50 percent of all wild adult salmon in the sea. The worst single incident occurred last year, when 600,000 fish were lost during a storm in the Faroe Islands. Research suggests as many as one-third of adult salmon entering Norwegian rivers are escaped farmed fish, while it's estimated they now outnumber native salmon by ten to one in some North American rivers.

While it has been known for some time that escaped farmed salmon are breeding in rivers with native fish, scientists say the research provides the first scientific evidence that long-term interbreeding could lead to the extinction of wild populations.

"As repeated escapes [of farmed salmon] are now a common occurrence in some areas, a cumulative effect is produced generation on generation, which could lead to extinction of endangered wild populations," said Andy Ferguson of the School of Biology and Biochemistry, Queen's University, Belfast, who was joint leader of the study.

Leading fish geneticist, Kjetil Hindar, from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, describes the research as "seminal," adding: "A long-term study of the fitness of cultured salmon in the wild is unique and the results will be of major importance to those dealing with the biology and management of salmonid fishes throughout the world."

The experiment, carried out at Ireland's Marine Institute research facility on the Burrishoole River System, was designed to simulate the impacts of fish farm escapees now present in rivers throughout northwest Europe and northeast North America. The Burrishoole research team planted known numbers of farm and wild-origin salmon eggs on spawning beds. Young fish were also reared in hatchery tanks and released as smolts, the stage at which salmon head to sea before traveling to northerly feeding grounds. The team then monitored returning adults, caught in traps, coastal nets and by anglers, using DNA profiling to identify parentage.

The researchers found that farm salmon showed an estimated lifetime success of just two percent compared with native stock, while the survival rate of adult hybrid salmon was between 27 and 89 percent compared with wild fish. Even more startling was the finding that 70 percent of second-generation, wild-farm hybrids died within a few weeks of hatching due to outbreeding depression. Ferguson says this is caused by genetic incompatibilities between parents but does not occur until the second generation when recombination of the parental genes takes place.
With potential young wild salmon instead being converted into hybrids because of the presence of escaped farmed fish, the study suggests the resulting decline in adult survival could eventually wipe out a population. Ferguson says the influence of escapee salmon also removes significant genetic differences between wild populations. For instance, this may affect their ability to home in on native breeding rivers when returning as adults to spawn.

Ferguson added: "Maintaining genetic variation is important for any species to continue to adapt to changing environmental conditions such as global warming. However, even if all wild populations were genetically the same there would still be a reduction in fitness due to interaction with domesticated salmon."

This is because farm salmon have been bred selectively to grow quickly. The ability to hunt at sea, jump waterfalls and locate a specific river aren't attributes fish farmers look for.
"It can be concluded that genetic changes leading to reduced survival in the wild is a feature of all domesticated salmon and consequently hybrids between farm and wild fish also have reduced survival," Ferguson said.

Richie Flynn, of the Irish Salmon Growers Association (ISGA), responded to the study by saying, "The industry will take note of the report in adhering to the strict protocols agreed by ISGA members to prevent farm escapes."
But, Flynn added, "It is hoped that those who manage river systems will also take note of the consequences of their actions in restocking those systems." Flynn refers here to another conclusion of the Burrishoole study - that deliberate stocking of young cultivated salmon to boost depleted wild populations is likely have the opposite effect to that intended.

While monitoring farm salmon parr in the river, Ferguson and his team found that these larger, more aggressive juveniles chased away 57 percent of native parr. Ferguson adds that deliberate stocking means large numbers of pure farm juveniles are introduced in the first generation, causing even lower overall survival than hybrid fish.

He added: "Some have argued that stocking does good by introducing new genetic variation. Our study and similar studies on salmonids in North America shows this to be completely false."
There are also those who thought farming of Atlantic salmon would help reduce pressure on overfished wild stocks. Now it seems the industry has set the species on a very different course, one that puts its very survival in doubt.


Cowlitzfisherman

Gawldarn! the lernin' never stops!

That explains why my older brother never got mad when I accidentally called him dad!

He never encouraged you to watch any gladiator movies, did he?

Now that you mention it h2o, I distinctly remember the day I found out that Eddie was actually short for Oedipus!

Now that's funny 4-Salt

Say WHAT??!!!?

Some of this drivel is so damn amusing I almost choke while laughing! Picture this....

"The small, clear pool in the center of the river is crowded with excited salmon nearing their spawning time. As Mother Natures clock ticks ever so closer to that crucial time in a Salmons lifecycle, there grows an ever increasing tension in the pool. What could be causing this tension, as all salmon in the pool were born there and fought their way through nets, seals, brids of prey, fisherman, and the violent forces of their home river itself?
Ever more frantic, the salmon race back and forth, back and forth across the now churning pool! Please, tell me what is wrong my salmon friends! Aha! No sooner than thinking this, the answer comes to me by way of telepathy with my cousins in nature.... They have suddenly realized that they were all born in the same water that generations of their kin were also born in. For eons the same blood has been born, died, and was re-born in this very pool. "How can we do this, is this not incest, as I know not who my brother and sister are?".... And thus was the end of our dear salmon, as they could not breed since they were all related......


Sorry folks...... got a little carried away there...

MC

Not you eddie!